THE CINDERELLA COMPLEX, ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES, AND THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF LIFE IN WOMEN: A WEB-BASED CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the correlations between the Cinderella complex — the desire in a woman sto be cared for and protected by another person, particularly a man — and each of two factors: adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and the meaning and purpose of life. Designed as web-based cross-sectional research, the study was conducted from March 2022 to June 2022. The data were collected via social media platforms, with 356 women participating. The instruments used were a personal information form, the Cinderella Complex Scale, the Turkish ACE-TR questionnaire, and the Meaning and Purpose of Life Scale. Means of scores obtained by participant women from the Cinderella Complex Scale, the ACE-TR questionnaire, and the Meaning and Purpose of Life Scale were successively 66.37±22.77, 1.28±1.71, and 65.13±10.35 points. Women's average scores on the Cinderella Complex Scale and ACE-TR Scale were low, and their average scores on the Meaning and Purpose of Life Scale were high. Participants’ descriptive characteristics — education level, employment status, spouse’s education level, and family type — affected their Cinderella Complex Scale scores, while their ACE-TR scores had no statistically significant effect. There is a significant relationship between scores on the Cinderella Complex Scale and scores on the Meaning and Purpose of Life Scale. To avoid developing a Cinderella complex, it is recommended that women adopt a wider perspective on life, continually upgrade their skills, become more independent in their thoughts and actions, and create a personal space where they can spend quality time in order to find more meaning in life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".